So...what is the pro-style spread?

Beerbrewingjacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
84
I posted this on another board, but I think it may be a good read for some.

After the game, there was much consternation on this board and in other outlets about the offensive balance GT displayed during the Clemson game. During the Spring game we all witnessed an offense hitting the TE over the middle, slant routes, go routes and a whole host of other concepts in the passing game that some of the detractors of the previous regime have been dying to see return to the flats. This along with practice reports building on what we saw in that Spring game led most of us to visions of Danny Wuerffel and Steve Spurrier.

Instead, the coaching staff had other ideas. Rather than opting to take an opportunity to showcase a drastically revamped offense, they instead chose to run a version of the spread that was more run heavy with less emphasis on the pass. I say version of the spread to highlight the point. What is meant by a pro-style spread? When I hear spread, I think of Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon and Auburn...to name a few. The first of those three, I think of the pass heavy spread with a complimentary RPO based running attack. Auburn has always been the opposite, more run heavy and passing out of the RPO. Florida was similar with Tim Tebow and Dan Mullen.

After the GT game last week, a lot of fans were quick with the hot take..."What are we doing? This is not what we were told we would see". (I am included in this). This was exacerbated by UNC coming back to win against South Carolina...by throwing the ball. However, UNC couldn't run the ball worth a lick opting to run the ball in the redzone their first three trips in that game and it resulting in 3 field goals. Their fans were irritated.

Back to GT. I have a stat line I wanted to share from last week.

Team X
Total snaps: 61
Passing: 24 (40%) - 20 of 24 for 332 yards and a QBR of 98.
Rushing: 37 (60%) - 354 Yards 9.6 YPC - QB Rush - 16 carries (43% of the rush snaps).
Total Yards: 686 (48% Passing/52% Rushing)

Georgia Tech
Total snaps: 63
Passing: 18 (30%) - 7 of 18 for 137 yards and a QBR of 63 (combined)
Rushing: 45 (70%) - 157 yards 3.6 YPC - QB Rush - 25 carries (55% of the rush snaps)
Total Yards: 294 (47% Passing/53% Rushing)

A few observations. Obviously team X operated a very high level. The QB was very efficient. The run game was strong. And, in terms of yardage, they were nearly 50/50 between run and pass, but in terms of snaps, they were more focused on the run. The leading rusher on this team QB going for 176 yards and led the backfield in terms of carries. Interesting.

For GT, our passing, compared to this historically great spread offensive team, was woefully lacking. GT played 3 QB's that combined for a total QBR of 63 that breaks down into Graham at 49, Oliver at 9 and Johnson at 5. Yikes. GT was slightly more reliant on the run by 10% in either direction compared to team X. GT's rushing YPC was also lacking, but the competition defensively between the two comparisons isn't comparable. So, I take that bit with a grain of salt. The purpose of this comparison is to see how GT compared to a historically elite spread offense program to add some much needed clarity to our fanbase on what exactly constitutes a spread offense. In terms of run/pass and QB rushing, both programs are surprisingly equal. Especially when you break it down in terms of total yardage by run and pass, both coming in at 50/50 run/pass yardage earned.

So...who is the comparison team? None other than Oklahoma. The offense that has seen Baker Mayfield and Kyler Murray slinging the ball around. Now, the offense looks different with a different QB at the helm in Jalen Hurts. Who GT fans clamored for in the offseason as a the perfect transition piece. Lincoln Riley has taken a passing attack and adapted it to his new QB who has been often referred to as a running QB who can pass it...sort of. It appears the major difference in success hinges on the efficiency of the conversions in the pass game. Going 20/24 in incredibly efficient. Most college QB's can't even do that in practice. The X factor here is that Oklahoma was facing Houston and GT was facing a much better defense in Clemson. But, let's focus less on the talent at QB and more on the balance of plays. And when you focus on that...GT's offensive playcalling wasn't much different. What you see is Lincoln Riley adapting his offense to the talent of what he had. This approach was one of the talks of the college football landscape this past week. While GT's coaches have been largely criticized for adapting the offense to the talent of what we had. The difference? 20 of 24 vs. 7 of 18. If GT can improve that stat, I think the criticizing will quiet.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,635
Location
Georgia
U are using high level stats that are relatively meaningless to define pro style or not.

Pro style refers to presnap checks and reads for the ol and qb. Refers to ol and rb pass pro and blocking techniques and scheme. Refers to te wr and rb route combos, option routes and route trees.

And from that. You can pass every time. Run every time. Or run the zone option every time.

The high level play itself really has little to do with pro style or not.

We are asking our squad to play offense in a semi pro system. It happens they chose to run alot out of it.

For reference please see lamar jackson and the ravens.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,750
I don’t think you can add QBRs to get a combined QBR. I can’t see any other way three QBRs of 49, 9, and 5 combine to a better QBR of 63.

Even averaging them wouldn’t be the right way to get a combined QBR, but it would be closer. TO, LJ, and JG didn’t get equal playing time, but 63/3 = 21 would be closer to the combined QBR for the game.

EDIT: I used the calculator at https://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/qb-rating.htm to get the combined QBR. It was 45.14. Graham’s stats really boosted the overall, but TO’s and LJ’s stats brought it down a bit.

63 is nearly respectable. 5 and 9 aren’t.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/08/how-does-the-nfl-s-quarterback-rating-system-work.html

1. Completion percentage: Subtract 30 from the percentage of passes that are thrown for completions, then multiply by .05.

2. Yards per attempt: Subtract yards per passing attempt by three, then multiply by .25.

3. Touchdown percentage: Multiply the percentage of touchdown passes per passing attempt by .2.

4. Interception percentage: Multiply the percentage of interceptions per passing attempt by .25, then subtract that number from 2.375.

The scores for each category are added together. That sum is divided by six and multiplied by 100, which converts it into a rating on a scale from zero to 158.3. A putatively average QB would receive a rating of 66.7 (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4, and 4/6 * 100 = 66.7).

We could do it by putting in the aggregate stats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Beerbrewingjacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
84
U are using high level stats that are relatively meaningless to define pro style or not.

Pro style refers to presnap checks and reads for the ol and qb. Refers to ol and rb pass pro and blocking techniques and scheme. Refers to te wr and rb route combos, option routes and route trees.

And from that. You can pass every time. Run every time. Or run the zone option every time.

The high level play itself really has little to do with pro style or not.

We are asking our squad to play offense in a semi pro system. It happens they chose to run alot out of it.

For reference please see lamar jackson and the ravens.

I mean that’s kind of the point. It doesn’t really mean much other than operating a system that is adaptable to the talent you have and maximizing their talent by putting them into a system that translates to the NFL. Whether it be running or passing.

I think that’s what the coaches did vs. Clemson and will continue to do.

The Oklahoma comparison and the high level stats are important because people complained about running too much and not passing and because of that “we weren’t a pro style spread” when in fact we were. Just a different version of it.
 

Beerbrewingjacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
84
I don’t think you can add QBRs to get a combined QBR. I can’t see any other way three QBRs of 49, 9, and 5 combine to a better QBR of 63.

Even averaging them wouldn’t be the right way to get a combined QBR, but it would be closer. TO, LJ, and JG didn’t get equal playing time, but 63/3 = 21 would be closer to the combined QBR for the game.

63 is nearly respectable. 5 and 9 aren’t.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2001/08/how-does-the-nfl-s-quarterback-rating-system-work.html

1. Completion percentage: Subtract 30 from the percentage of passes that are thrown for completions, then multiply by .05.

2. Yards per attempt: Subtract yards per passing attempt by three, then multiply by .25.

3. Touchdown percentage: Multiply the percentage of touchdown passes per passing attempt by .2.

4. Interception percentage: Multiply the percentage of interceptions per passing attempt by .25, then subtract that number from 2.375.

The scores for each category are added together. That sum is divided by six and multiplied by 100, which converts it into a rating on a scale from zero to 158.3. A putatively average QB would receive a rating of 66.7 (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4, and 4/6 * 100 = 66.7).

We could do it by putting in the aggregate stats.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol I know you can’t but I was trying to help the stat by just adding it. It would be lower by appropriately allocating it as you suggested. Which would further drive home my point.
 
Last edited:

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,635
Location
Georgia
I mean that’s kind of the point. It doesn’t really mean much other than operating a system that is adaptable to the talent you have and maximizing their talent by putting them into a system that translates to the NFL. Whether it be running or passing.

I think that’s what the coaches did vs. Clemson and will continue to do.

The Oklahoma comparison and the high level stats are important because people complained about running too much and not passing and because of that “we weren’t a pro style spread” when in fact we were. Just a different version of it.

Sure. My point is run vs pass percentage doesn’t define pro style. However we all hope and want us to move to more balance because the reality is this offense cant run the option every play like the old one. Its not set up for that. Its a scheme set up for more balance
 

GTRambler

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,561
The “pro-style spread” is the name chosen by the current GT OC and HC to name their current GT offensive system. That’s all I know after watching this offense play in one football game.

It will be very interesting to see how our GT “pro-style spread” offense does against the University of South Florida this Saturday — and compare it to the “pro spread” offensive system used by the Wisconsin Badgers, who decimated South Florida 49-0 last week.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ght-end-jake-ferguson-graham-mertz-pro-spread
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,750
I think the link about Wisconsin’s spread is a good one for a “pro-style offense”.

Houston and Baltimore are probably close to what we’ll see here for a while—mobile QB, a tight end, usually a single running back.

Atlanta and New Orleans are also in the same mold in terms of formations, but less running from the QB position.

That does leave it vague on the blocking (Denver-style zone blocking vs more common NFL schemes) and the routes, etc.

I’d read it primarily as “a formation NFL fans and scouts are familiar with” and “positions that map directly to positions that NFL scouts are evaluating”.

We’re not looking air-raid as far as I know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,143
So a few things...first, I’m not sure the breakdown of run to pass snaps is what people were upset about. The lack of identity was the bigger frustration. Numbers on paper don’t describe what it looked like in real time.

Second, the game breakdown doesn’t account for when the plays were run. The vast majority of our passing came later in the game. During the part where we “were still in it” (which is a stretch) we ran on almost every down...to the point where Clemson just stopped even worrying about defending the pass.

Your point about what the spread is and isn’t is very valid. I think we’d be much better at running something like Auburn...which if you really look at it looks a lot like what we ran under CPJ in principle, but run out of the gun instead.

Can’t judge anything after one game, so I’ll reserve my true judgement on the OC for another few weeks, but it was not a good start in my eyes.
 
Messages
2,034
The “pro-style spread” is the name chosen by the current GT OC and HC to name their current GT offensive system. That’s all I know after watching this offense play in one football game.

It will be very interesting to see how our GT “pro-style spread” offense does against the University of South Florida this Saturday — and compare it to the “pro spread” offensive system used by the Wisconsin Badgers, who decimated South Florida 49-0 last week.

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2...ght-end-jake-ferguson-graham-mertz-pro-spread


LOL Wisconsin was most effective with the QB under center, two wings at the line and the RB 6 yards back being given a toss or hand off. Sort of like the Flex bone with the B back just 3 yards deeper.
 

Lavoisier

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
847
I hope we move away from the option plays as our roster turns over. I don't like running them from the gun and it isn't really an NFL style offense to run them as much as it seemed we did at Clemson.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,716
LOL Wisconsin was most effective with the QB under center, two wings at the line and the RB 6 yards back being given a toss or hand off. Sort of like the Flex bone with the B back just 3 yards deeper.

One of the things I noticed about schemes during the opening weekend of of college football was a LOT of teams are utilizing the "double wing" or AB look of the flexbone. Of course, it wasn't the flexbone that started the double wing formation, but it makes me think of CPJ's offense when I see it.

Everyone steals from everyone in football.
 

YJMD

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,597
I think the words CGC used were "NFL offense and defense". But the main part of it is the verbiage, the route trees, the personnel used, the responsibilities of various groups to read the defense... That really has little to do with being effective or what plays actually are run. Obviously there is a recruiting ploy here, but the reality is talented athletes at several programs who didn't see the field or who weren't very productive or whose teams weren't very productive have made the leap to the NFL unencumbered by that. Having trained in a system which lessens the learning curve to the NFL and makes it easier for scouts to project your game at the next level is important. Examples I'm thinking of are LSU when their offense has been meh, backup players at Alabama, USC, etc.

But really the biggest challenge here is comparing our first game as a team under a new scheme against Clemson in their house vs the well-established juggernaut of Oklahoma against Houston in their house.
 

BCJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
688
My $0.02 - Based on what CGC and OCDP have said in all their interviews, their interpretation of a "pro-style offense" can't be separated from their insistence that GT is going to be a "player-based system" not a scheme based system. So, being "pro-style" isn't about a particular game plan, formation, or play. It's about asking the players to do (up to their ability) the kinds of skills valued by the NFL.

So, we're going to run a scheme that highlights pass-protection and zone-blocking from the OL. Versatility and passing reads from the QB. Route running from WRs. RBs picking up blitzs in the passing game, getting involved in the passing game, and running from backfield hand-offs. We may run option reads. The QBs may run. But it will be concepts that you could see on Sunday. Even if the proportions aren't the same.

We're not going to: cut block as much, have our OL in four point weight forward stances all the time, rely as much on pitches to the RB, look for our WRs to be blockers first. I don't mean any of that critically. Just the differences in philosophy.

Edit: Also, what YJMD said above. ^
 

jchens_GT

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
573
Location
Georgia
I think the link about Wisconsin’s spread is a good one for a “pro-style offense”.

Houston and Baltimore are probably close to what we’ll see here for a while—mobile QB, a tight end, usually a single running back.

Atlanta and New Orleans are also in the same mold in terms of formations, but less running from the QB position.

That does leave it vague on the blocking (Denver-style zone blocking vs more common NFL schemes) and the routes, etc.

I’d read it primarily as “a formation NFL fans and scouts are familiar with” and “positions that map directly to positions that NFL scouts are evaluating”.

We’re not looking air-raid as far as I know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you summed it up nicely here.

I do not think Collins’ intent with the “pro spread” messaging is to mislead fans. I believe his intent is to tell recruits and his players that “we can put you in the NFL and we run a system that translates very directly to what teams in the league run”. He wants kids to know there is a clear path to the league.

Recruiting recruiting recruiting.
 

chicoGT

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
24
My $0.02 - It's about asking the players to do (up to their ability) the kinds of skills valued by the NFL.
^

I think BC's 2 cents is right on the money. CGC has emphasized developing skills valued by NFL, as opposed to a specific offense.
 
Top